Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Nov 2012 20:54 UTC, submitted by Elv13
Gnome "Theme development is a tedious and difficult task, and for the GTK devs to be so careless in breaking their API at every turn disrespects the many hours people put into making themes for it. [...] I was given to believe that this breakage stems from a Microsoft-like climate of preventing users from customizing their systems, and deliberately breaking the work of others so that your 'brand' is the best. Anytime I hear the word 'brand' being used in Linux, I know something valuable is being poisoned." I find the tone of this one a bit too harsh and overly negative at times, but his point still stands.
Thread beginning with comment 541666
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Why not use Qt?
by segedunum on Fri 9th Nov 2012 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Why not use Qt?"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

...or how, being used to LXDE with lightweight GTK+ apps, I can actually notice and get annoyed by how the closest competing Qt4 apps tend to be a few hundred milliseconds more sluggish on my AthlonII X2 270 with 16GiB of RAM.

I'm sure KDE and Qt developers could do lightweight apps to shave some imperceptible time off for you, but then they would take longer to develop and wouldn't have any features anyone using a desktop would care about. LXDE is basically just a window manager. If it wasn't more people would be using it, but they aren't.

This kind of brain damage is what has killed the Linux desktop. I can only laugh in amusement and despair that in all the years I have seen Linux desktop articles on this site that these comments are still prevalent.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Why not use Qt?
by ssokolow on Fri 9th Nov 2012 17:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Why not use Qt?"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

I'm sure KDE and Qt developers could do lightweight apps to shave some imperceptible time off for you, but then they would take longer to develop and wouldn't have any features anyone using a desktop would care about. LXDE is basically just a window manager. If it wasn't more people would be using it, but they aren't.


You obviously don't know much about LXDE. I suggest examining the categorized (core, accessories, system, configuration) list of components at http://wiki.lxde.org/en/Main_Page before making that claim.

...and even if the combination of Plasma, KWin, Dolphin, and friends didn't induce noticeable slow-downs that doesn't change the fact that the maintainership of GTK+ is the problem and the UI design philosophy for things like Amarok and Gwenview does an inferior job of meeting my goals compared to applications like Audacious and Geeqie which happen to be written using GTK+ (and which also happen to be more lightweight).

Edited 2012-11-09 17:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Why not use Qt?
by segedunum on Fri 9th Nov 2012 19:54 in reply to "RE[3]: Why not use Qt?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You obviously don't know much about LXDE.

I'm afraid I do - and XFCE. It looks and feels like what it is - a mid-to-late nineties post-CDE, barely-better-than-a-window-manager, not-quite-a-desktop that even a small minority of Linux desktop users use. Now that is small. Ditto XFCE.

There's a reason they are used by a minority and only by those who believe they can see miniscule time delays on extremely modern hardware and believe that if they run it on modern hardware it will be blazzzzing fast. Or something.

...and even if the combination of Plasma, KWin, Dolphin, and friends didn't induce noticeable slow-downs

People are not going to trade features and functionality for your perception of 'slowdowns' I'm afraid.

Many Linux desktop people, and especially those around Gnome and GTK, take the 80/20 rule as to why you just don't need all those features and why you should choose something 'lightweight'. Alas, the problem is it is never the same 20% of features that people use.

They don't even define lightweight either, but they don't tell you what it is - software that looks like arse and does less.

...that doesn't change the fact that the maintainership of GTK+ is the problem...

What I find ironic is that you clearly love 'lightweight software' but GTK itself has chosen to be more and more 'lightweight' - and you don't like that.

...UI design philosophy for things like Amarok and Gwenview does an inferior job of meeting my goals compared to applications like Audacious and Geeqie which happen to be written using GTK+ (and which also happen to be more lightweight).

That's good - for you.

Ever see any software companies marketing 'lightweight' software, 'lightweight' word processors or 'lightweight web browsers? No? That's because there isn't a market for software with less features and with the tagline 'lightweight'. You just don't see it.

Reviews of such software generally go along the lines of "Well, it seemed to load up fast but it just doesn't have this feature that I need. If it implements that then I might use it". Stories like that are a penny a dozen and are as old as graphical user interfaces themselves.

Reply Parent Score: 3